STATE OF ORISSA Vs. DHIRENDRA KUMAR NAIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondents in the two appeals, which have been heard together and will be governed by this common judgment, stood their trial with two co -accused persons in the Court of Session. The respondents stood charged under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code ( for short, 'the Code') for having committed rape on Ahalya Dei (P. W. 1.) during the night of the 6th/7th September, 1978 at Sisua. The co -accused Jagannath Santra who stood charged under Section 354 of the Code and the co -accused Khirod Chandra Das who stood charged under Sections 201 and 354 of the Code were acquitted. On a consideration of the evidence of the victim (P. W. 1) and the other evidence on record, the trial Court held that the charge against the respondents had been established. They were accordingly convicted under Section 376 of the Code and each of them was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years. After the success of the respondents in the Court of the learned appellate judge who set aside the order of conviction and sentences passed against them, the State is in appeal. I have heard the learned Standing Counsel for the State and Mr. 8. Panda for the respondents.

(2.) IN an appeal against acquittal, if two views are reasonably possible, the one taken by the acquitting Court is not to be interfered with. The question for consideration is as to whether the findings recorded by the learned appellate Judge could not have been recorded on the evidence on record. The mere fact that another which would be a better view could be taken on the evidence on record is no ground for interference in an appeal against acquittal. - -

(3.) IN the instant case, on her own showing, P. W. 1 had been going away, from her house on some occasions leaving her husband without even informing him. As has been submitted at the Bar, the inconsistent statements made by P. W. 1 with regard to the charge of rape in the first information report lodged by her which, as admitted by her, had been done under the direction of P. W. 5 who was on inimical terms with the respondents who had supported his rival in the election to the office of the Sarpanch of the locality, the statement made by her in the course of investigation and her evidence would bring about her condemnation and would indicate, as observed by the learned appellate Judge, that if there had been sexual intercourse by the four respondents, as alleged by P. W 1, it had been done with her tacit consent. Although two of the respondents hard allegedly committed rape in a cabin where she had been left by the co -accused Jagannath and the other two had committed rape, as alleged, in the village school after having taken her on the false pretext that she would be left in the house of her relation which was at variance with the evidence of the rickshaw -puller (P W. 2) according to whom she was bodily lifted by two of the respondents, on her own showing, P. W. 1 had not called out for help on both the occasions.